Cause he was an average player that stood out in the lesser leagues like most usually do so he's just pissy he never got paid during those times and decided to sue.

He's just a whiney child who is suing for stories old men tell....I was great that time in little league...fark him.

Actually, I looked it up. He had an ACL injury right before the start of his first season at UCLA, and the knee was repaired by using the ligament from a cadaver. Recovery took 18 months, and he never had the same speed again.

Back to the article... does anything think maybe his point of this was to make a point about people wanting to pay the college basketball & football players... basically for the same reasons (ie, "TV networks and the institutions are making millions, the players should get some!"). It honestly isn't a horrible counter-argument... if it is a fair argument for NCAA players of the "high paying TV sports" to get "paid", the same could be said to be true of Little Leaguer's. Or comparing it to a 12-year-old actor in a movie vs. a 12-year-old on a Little League team that makes it to ESPN TV.

While that obviously isn't "crazy"... that money is totally going back to the LLWS organization. Do the teams that make it to the finals get any sort of "prize money" to those (I'd assume mostly if not all non-profit) organizations (the local "league" those teams are in)?

So is television where we draw the line? What if the game is just broadcast on radio, somebody's making money on that venture, too. What about a recap of the game in the newspaper? What if I post my kid's Little League score on Facebook, that site sells billions in advertising. Should the Little League players get a cut of that too?

I listened to the axx holes who opposed NCAA players (who want their scholarships secured in the event of injury and medical coverage) saying that these athletes should play *for the love of the game *.Content creators don't work for free. Athletes who generate huge revenues - and that means college football and basketball players - shouldn't be treated like free labor that earns millions for media leaches and "institutions" like the NCAA . They need to be treated better. I'm not saying hand them a pile of cash, but maybe it amounts to the same thing. :P

ongbok:He does have a point, and it wouldn't be that hard for them to do. They could drop $5K or $10K in a scholarship fund for each participant and call it deferred compensation for their participation.

Or, they could say "we're paying for your hotel rooms and facilities and offering you a chance to play on tv for the world championship and if you don't want to play feel free to stay home".

While that obviously isn't "crazy"... that money is totally going back to the LLWS organization. Do the teams that make it to the finals get any sort of "prize money" to those (I'd assume mostly if not all non-profit) organizations (the local "league" those teams are in)?

If the games weren't televised, then it's OK not to pay them? That hardly makes any sense at all.

I doubt Little League is raking in cash hand over fist and making gigantic profits off of these kids like major college football programs do. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing scholarships as a prize for those who make it to the LLWS (which are the only games televised anyway, except maybe in really small towns or something).

wxboy:If the games weren't televised, then it's OK not to pay them? That hardly makes any sense at all.

I doubt Little League is raking in cash hand over fist and making gigantic profits off of these kids like major college football programs do. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing scholarships as a prize for those who make it to the LLWS (which are the only games televised anyway, except maybe in really small towns or something).

As somebody pointed out above they just resigned with ESPN for $7.5 million for the broadcast rights.

I guess I would first want to see how much money is being made and by whom.

ESPN is a business so if they want to go through the trouble to set up and broadcast these games they should be able to make a profit.

But if ESPN is making millions and you have parents that can't make it because they couldn't sell enough candy bars, then the LLWS and ESPN should be paying for the parents. Or at least supplementing them. Maybe they do that already? Maybe they already have big events planned for the kids and families like free trips to amusement parks?

The NCAA paying players is a whole different story. How much does the NCAA as an organization actually make? Or is the beef more with the AD's that are raking in ridiculous amounts of money. How much do players get paid? Does the 3rd string walk on punter make as much as the starting QB? Does the RB at directional school Z make as much as the RB at USC? Do you pay the players for all sports? If so, does the wrestling team get as much as the football team? Is it based on how much money the team makes? How do you balance that so that the larger schools, that already have a huge advantage, do not get that much further ahead. A school like Texas would could pay a ton more than even some middling school like Oregon State. If you allow endorsements how to you keep it fair? A school like Oregon with it's marketing and brand would be killing in endorsements where a school like Wisconsin, while they have success, don't have the same national visibility. Or are we just saying F fairness*?

I'm all for guaranteed scholarships in the event of an injury though. And some sort of extended health coverage for any issues that may arise from playing. Instead of just a year like most students get post graduation, extend athletes to five or ten years.

What they should do is set up an NFL D league. If you want to go straight pro, you go there. If you want to spend 3 to 5 years playing on scholarship, getting an education** and living on a small stipend then you do that.

*It's not really fair now, but it would get a lot worse**your mileage may vary

ongbok:wxboy: If the games weren't televised, then it's OK not to pay them? That hardly makes any sense at all.

I doubt Little League is raking in cash hand over fist and making gigantic profits off of these kids like major college football programs do. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing scholarships as a prize for those who make it to the LLWS (which are the only games televised anyway, except maybe in really small towns or something).

As somebody pointed out above they just resigned with ESPN for $7.5 million for the broadcast rights.

That's pocket change for ESPN.

On the other hand, running Little League around the world isn't exactly cheap, even with local and national sponsors. I highly doubt anyone's getting rich off of Little League. They're not trying to build a fan base, or sell tickets or merchandise, at least on a large scale, or licensing video games, the way NCAA does.

I'm not opposed to paying the kids whose games are televised, but I don't think not doing so is the least bit comparable to the NCAA not paying its athletes.

ESPN also broadcast the National Spelling Bee a few weeks ago, and I don't hear anyone saying those kids should have been paid (of course, the winner was, but that would happen anyway without TV).

I don't seriously sit down and watch it, but, if it is on and I'm flipping around on that late Sunday afternoon when they show the championship, I might stop and see what's going on. Probably like the other 6 (+ 2.1 million) that watched last years.

My comment was more of you expressing shock like you had no idea it existed as a "thing". You can not watch something and still have cultural awareness of it. That's a "thing" too.

dletter:Serious Post on Serious Thread: So amongst the 7 viewers, are you a parent, a pedophile or a moron?

/why not all three?!

I don't seriously sit down and watch it, but, if it is on and I'm flipping around on that late Sunday afternoon when they show the championship, I might stop and see what's going on. Probably like the other 6 (+ 2.1 million) that watched last years.

My comment was more of you expressing shock like you had no idea it existed as a "thing". You can not watch something and still have cultural awareness of it. That's a "thing" too.

Culture? That word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Look, I know little league series games exists, mostly b/c some broo-ha-ha about some overage player w/o a birth certificate from Cuba or some shiat a couple years ago that made 'news'.

But to know or care that it is regularly televised and viewed by your numbers approx .66% of the population. Yeah. I stand by 'that's a thing?'

wxboy:ongbok: wxboy: If the games weren't televised, then it's OK not to pay them? That hardly makes any sense at all.

I doubt Little League is raking in cash hand over fist and making gigantic profits off of these kids like major college football programs do. That said, I wouldn't mind seeing scholarships as a prize for those who make it to the LLWS (which are the only games televised anyway, except maybe in really small towns or something).

As somebody pointed out above they just resigned with ESPN for $7.5 million for the broadcast rights.

That's pocket change for ESPN.

On the other hand, running Little League around the world isn't exactly cheap, even with local and national sponsors. I highly doubt anyone's getting rich off of Little League. They're not trying to build a fan base, or sell tickets or merchandise, at least on a large scale, or licensing video games, the way NCAA does.

I'm not opposed to paying the kids whose games are televised, but I don't think not doing so is the least bit comparable to the NCAA not paying its athletes.

ESPN also broadcast the National Spelling Bee a few weeks ago, and I don't hear anyone saying those kids should have been paid (of course, the winner was, but that would happen anyway without TV).

Nobody was talking about paying the kids who's games are televised in the LLWS either until O'Bannon mentioned it. And for the record they should pay the kids who are televised on the spelling bee also, although I'm sure they are compensated with gifts. But with the LLWS they don't compensate them with anything because they say it can cause them to have eligibility problems with the NCAA if they want to play college sports, which is BS because the producers of the documentary Hoop Dreams found away to compensate the two kids from that movie without endangering their eligibility. And the money that LL gets doesn't flow back to the teams. They have to raise their own money and pay their own way to the LLWS, all LL gives them is a small stipend at the beginning of each season for supplies and the rest of the money the teams need they have to raise on their own. I remember one year the Venezuelan team was about to forfeit because they didn't have money to travel to the games and Magglio Ordoranez paid their way and bought them new equipment.

Debeo Summa Credo:ongbok: He does have a point, and it wouldn't be that hard for them to do. They could drop $5K or $10K in a scholarship fund for each participant and call it deferred compensation for their participation.

Or, they could say "we're paying for your hotel rooms and facilities and offering you a chance to play on tv for the world championship and if you don't want to play feel free to stay home".

If you actually read O'Bannon's argument, it's because EA used his (and other players) likeness in one of the NCAA basketball games in a 'classic teams mode' well after he graduated from college.

Wait... so if Little League is only getting a little rich off of the players it's ok not to pay the players? I thought this was America, man. Oh right, "lay down and take it little man, and let your betters make the money off of your labor". Yeah, it's America.